2
|
Brown PD, Chung C, Liu DD, McAvoy S, Grosshans D, Al Feghali K, Mahajan A, Li J, McGovern SL, McAleer MF, Ghia AJ, Sulman EP, Penas-Prado M, de Groot JF, Heimberger AB, Wang J, Armstrong TS, Gilbert MR, Guha-Thakurta N, Wefel JS. A prospective phase II randomized trial of proton radiotherapy vs intensity-modulated radiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 2021; 23:1337-1347. [PMID: 33647972 DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noab040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To determine if proton radiotherapy (PT), compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), delayed time to cognitive failure in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). METHODS Eligible patients were randomized unblinded to PT vs IMRT. The primary endpoint was time to cognitive failure. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), intracranial progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS A total of 90 patients were enrolled and 67 were evaluable with median follow-up of 48.7 months (range 7.1-66.7). There was no significant difference in time to cognitive failure between treatment arms (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.45-1.75; P = .74). PT was associated with a lower rate of fatigue (24% vs 58%, P = .05), but otherwise, there were no significant differences in PROs at 6 months. There was no difference in PFS (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.44-1.23; P = .24) or OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.49-1.50; P = .60). However, PT significantly reduced the radiation dose for nearly all structures analyzed. The average number of grade 2 or higher toxicities was significantly higher in patients who received IMRT (mean 1.15, range 0-6) compared to PT (mean 0.35, range 0-3; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS In this signal-seeking phase II trial, PT was not associated with a delay in time to cognitive failure but did reduce toxicity and patient-reported fatigue. Larger randomized trials are needed to determine the potential of PT such as dose escalation for GBM and cognitive preservation in patients with lower-grade gliomas with a longer survival time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul D Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Caroline Chung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Diane D Liu
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Sarah McAvoy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - David Grosshans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Karine Al Feghali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Anita Mahajan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jing Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Susan L McGovern
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Mary-Fran McAleer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Amol J Ghia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Erik P Sulman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
| | - Marta Penas-Prado
- Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - John F de Groot
- Department of Neuro-Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Amy B Heimberger
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jihong Wang
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Terri S Armstrong
- Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Mark R Gilbert
- Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Nandita Guha-Thakurta
- Department of Neuroradiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jeffrey S Wefel
- Department of Neuro-Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ferreira C, Sterling D, Reynolds M, Dusenbery K, Chen C, Alaei P. First clinical implementation of GammaTile permanent brain implants after FDA clearance. Brachytherapy 2021; 20:673-685. [PMID: 33487560 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2020.12.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2020] [Revised: 11/17/2020] [Accepted: 12/10/2020] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE GammaTile cesium-131 (131Cs) permanent brain implant has received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance as a promising treatment for certain brain tumors. Our center was the first institution in the United States after FDA clearance to offer the clinical use of GammaTile brachytherapy outside of a clinical trial. The purpose of this work is to aid the medical physicist and radiation oncologist in implementing this collagen carrier tile brachytherapy (CTBT) program in their practice. METHODS A total of 23 patients have been treated with GammaTile to date at our center. Treatment planning system (TPS) commissioning was performed by configuring the parameters for the 131Cs (IsoRay Model CS-1, Rev2) source, and doses were validated with the consensus data from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine TG-43U1S2. Implant procedures, dosimetry, postimplant planning, and target delineations were established based on our clinical experience. Radiation safety aspects were evaluated based on exposure rate measurements of implanted patients, as well as body and ring badge measurements. RESULTS An estimated timeframe of the GammaTile clinical responsibilities for the medical physicist, radiation oncologist, and neurosurgeon is presented. TPS doses were validated with published dose to water for 131Cs. Clinical aspects, including estimation of the number of tiles, treatment planning, dosimetry, and radiation safety considerations, are presented. CONCLUSION The implementation of the GammaTile program requires collaboration from multiple specialties, including medical physics, radiation oncology, and neurosurgery. This manuscript provides a roadmap for the implementation of this therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clara Ferreira
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
| | - David Sterling
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | - Margaret Reynolds
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | - Kathryn Dusenbery
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | - Clark Chen
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | - Parham Alaei
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Reoperation for glioma is increasingly common but there is neither firm agreement on the indications nor unequivocally proven benefit from clinical trials. Patient and tumor factors should be considered when offering reoperation and a clear surgical goal set. Reoperation is challenging because of placement of previous incisions, wound devascularization by preceding radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, chronic steroid use, the need for further adjuvant therapy, and adherent and defective dura. This article reviews indications, challenges, and recommendations for repeat surgery in the patient with glioma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rasheed Zakaria
- Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 442, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Jeffrey S Weinberg
- Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 442, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lamba N, Mehanna E, Kearney RB, Catalano PJ, Brown PD, Haas-Kogan DA, Aizer AA. Prescription of memantine during non-stereotactic, brain-directed radiation among patients with brain metastases: a population-based study. J Neurooncol 2020; 148:509-517. [PMID: 32468331 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-020-03542-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2020] [Accepted: 05/21/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) remains an important component of treatment for patients with multiple brain metastases (BrM) but is associated with significant neurotoxicity and memory impairment. Although RTOG 0614 demonstrated that administration of memantine to patients receiving WBRT may reduce radiation-associated cognitive decline, prior literature has suggested that radiation oncologists are hesitant to prescribe memantine. We sought to assess the frequency of memantine prescription in patients managed with non-stereotactic, brain-directed radiation for BrM. METHODS Patients > 65 years old with newly diagnosed BrM between 2007 and 2016 receiving non-stereotactic, brain-directed radiation (including WBRT) were identified using the SEER-Medicare database. Receipt of memantine with non-stereotactic, brain-directed radiation was defined as any Part D claim for memantine 30 days before or after initiation of non-stereotactic, brain-directed radiation. Clinical and demographic variables among patients who did and did not receive memantine were compared. RESULTS Between 2007 and 2016, we identified 6220 patients with BrM receiving non-stereotactic, brain-directed radiation. Only 2.20% of patients (n = 137) received memantine with radiation. Rates were 1.10% versus 5.14% in the period preceding (2007-2013) and following (2014-2016) the publication of RTOG 0614, respectively. Overall utilization of memantine remained low across several clinical, demographic, and prognostic variables. CONCLUSION Despite phase 3 evidence supporting memantine utilization among patients receiving WBRT, our population-based study indicates that rates of memantine prescription are strikingly low, although memantine utilization seems to be increasing since publication of RTOG 0614. Further investigation is needed to identify provider and practice-related barriers preventing incorporation of memantine into management paradigms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nayan Lamba
- Department of Medicine, Cambridge Health Alliance, 1493 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. .,Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
| | | | - Rachel B Kearney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Paul J Catalano
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Paul D Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Daphne A Haas-Kogan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ayal A Aizer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Glioblastoma heterogeneity and the tumour microenvironment: implications for preclinical research and development of new treatments. Biochem Soc Trans 2019; 47:625-638. [PMID: 30902924 DOI: 10.1042/bst20180444] [Citation(s) in RCA: 82] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2018] [Revised: 02/25/2019] [Accepted: 02/28/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Glioblastoma is the deadliest form of brain cancer. Aside from inadequate treatment options, one of the main reasons glioblastoma is so lethal is the rapid growth of tumour cells coupled with continuous cell invasion into surrounding healthy brain tissue. Significant intra- and inter-tumour heterogeneity associated with differences in the corresponding tumour microenvironments contributes greatly to glioblastoma progression. Within this tumour microenvironment, the extracellular matrix profoundly influences the way cancer cells become invasive, and changes to extracellular (pH and oxygen levels) and metabolic (glucose and lactate) components support glioblastoma growth. Furthermore, studies on clinical samples have revealed that the tumour microenvironment is highly immunosuppressive which contributes to failure in immunotherapy treatments. Although technically possible, many components of the tumour microenvironment have not yet been the focus of glioblastoma therapies, despite growing evidence of its importance to glioblastoma malignancy. Here, we review recent progress in the characterisation of the glioblastoma tumour microenvironment and the sources of tumour heterogeneity in human clinical material. We also discuss the latest advances in technologies for personalised and in vitro preclinical studies using brain organoid models to better model glioblastoma and its interactions with the surrounding healthy brain tissue, which may play an essential role in developing new and more personalised treatments for this aggressive type of cancer.
Collapse
|